After fierce resistance from the gun lobby and its allies in Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder has dialed back talk about reimposing a federal assault weapons ban to help curb the spiraling violence in Mexico.

As much as 90 percent of the assault weapons and other guns used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the United States, fueling drug-related violence that is believed to have killed more than 7,000 people since January 2008, according to estimates by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials. But the political obstacles to addressing the U.S.-to-Mexico weapons flow are dramatically underscored by Holder's experience in just the last few weeks.

Speaking at a Feb. 25 news conference announcing a roundup of Mexican cartel members in the United States, Holder endorsed reinstituting the ban on assault weapons—a position that President Obama himself supported during last year's campaign. A federal ban on high-powered, semi-automatic assault weapons, originally passed by Congress in 1994, expired five years ago.

"There are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said in response to a question from a Mexican reporter. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum." Holder then ducked a follow-up question about whether he expected Congress to act on a renewed ban this year, saying, "I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be" on legislative issues that the Obama administration presses on Capitol Hill.

But his comments roused the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association quickly sent out "action alerts" to its members. Sixty-five House Democrats signed a letter saying they would oppose any new ban—as did Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester. "Senators to Attorney General Holder: Stay Away From Our Guns," read a press release sent out by Baucus's office. In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both shot down the idea that Congress would take up any new assault weapons ban this year.

When Holder was asked about the assault weapons issue again at another press conference on March 25, he steered away from even mentioning a new weapons ban. "Well, I mean, I think what we're going to do is try to, obviously, enforce the laws that we have on the books," Holder said, adding that he planned to discuss the flow of illegal arms with "our Mexican counterparts" during an upcoming trip to Mexico.

Holder's about-face was no accident. White House officials instructed the attorney general to tone down any further talk about assault weapons in order not to complicate the president's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, according to administration and congressional sources who, like others quoted in this story, asked not to be named talking about internal deliberations. (An assault weapons ban was also conspicuously off the table when the Obama administration unveiled new proposals to combat Mexican cartel violence.) "We've been told to lay low," a Democratic congressional aide said he was told when he raised the issue of a new assault weapons ban with a Justice Department official. (Emphasis supplied, MBV.)

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder was trying to signal that he wasn't expecting immediate congressional action when he sidestepped the question about timing at the original Feb. 25 news conference. But the NRA was only too happy to take credit for the attorney general's new tone.

After Holder made his first comments about a ban, the NRA started "getting out the word—this is going to be a battle, they're coming," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the NRA. As a result, LaPierre said, the attorney general "ran into a stonewall on Capitol Hill." It's no secret, moreover, that much of the opposition came from Democrats, including the party's leadership. During the early 1990s, congressional Democratic leaders aggressively pushed gun-control legislation—and suffered crushing setbacks in the polls starting with the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. "They've learned the history of what happened the last time," said LaPierre.

But that does leave an awkward situation for Holder and the White House. The attorney general flies to Mexico City on April 1 to talk about steps the United States can take to deal with cartel violence—and the Mexicans are adamant about reimposing a weapons ban. Meanwhile, the White House still lists a new assault weapons ban as one of the president's official positions on its Web site (scroll down to the "Urban Policy" section).

Given that Obama rarely talked about assault weapons during the campaign and has said not a word about the subject since becoming president, should it still be there? "There has been no change in position—the president supports the 2nd amendment, he respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes that we can take common sense steps to keep our streets safe," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.

It is now the morning of 26 March 2009. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Mexico City. In an interview recorded the day before with Lara Logan, Clinton says,

"We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America."

The next month, President Barack Obama is in Mexico City and at a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, repeats the same meme:

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”

Political realities make reinstating the assault weapons ban extraordinarily difficult, President Obama said Thursday, but he stressed he is still in favor of the gun control measure.

Obama, joined by Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a press conference in Mexico City, said he and Calderon discussed the ban "extensively" during their meeting earlier in the day.

Mexican officials have said in recent days that they would like to see the ban reinstated, noting that more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S.

The White House was quick to blunt comments Attorney General Eric Holder made earlier this year supportive of pursuing a reinstatement, but Obama said Thursday that he has not changed his position.

"I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense," Obama said, adding that he is not "under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy."

Instead, the president said his administration is focused on enforcing laws that are already on the books, like targeting guns that are illegally smuggled over the border that are "helping to fuel extraordinary violence" as the drug trade soars.

"That's something we can stop," Obama said.

Calderon acknowledged that the assault weapons ban, opposed by many Republicans and some conservative Democrats, is one of the "thorny topics," and he said it has to be approached with a "great deal of sensitivity."

"We know that it is a politically delicate topic," Calderon said, claiming that his government respects the policies and decisions of Congress.

Obama said he would push the Senate to ratify CIFTA, an interhemispheric small-arms treaty that was signed during the Clinton's administration but stalled in the upper chamber.

Obama said he is "confident" the two countries can make progress on the epidemic of gun and drug violence along the border, but he acknowledged that it is unrealistic to think the problems can be eliminated altogether. Instead, the president said he would like to see drug-related violence reduced to the point it "becomes a localized criminal problem."

"That's the kind of progress I think can be made," Obama said. "We're going to be very focused on this. It's going to be a top priority."

Isikoff, Clinton and Obama were simply parroting a meme begun by notoriously anti-firearm Senators Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein during a 17 March congressional hearing.

Durbin said: "According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America." Feinstein added: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that."

The "90 percent" allegation was dutifully reported as fact by a whole host of news organizations including the Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC and the Chicago Tribune.

Now to a correction and a conversation. When President Obama was in Mexico yesterday, he met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss, among other things, the flow of U.S. guns south of the border. To learn more about the Mexican cartels that are using those guns, we spoke yesterday with Professor Bruce Bagley. He's chair of the Department of International Studies at the University of Miami.

Well, in the course of that conversation, Professor Bagley said that 90 percent of all guns used in drug-related crimes in Mexico come from the United States. It's a statistic that's been repeated by many public officials, including the Mexican ambassador as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, even President Obama as recently as yesterday.

President BARACK OBAMA: More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lie in our shared border.

NORRIS: But that's not exactly true. Joining us now on the line for a little clarification is Robert Farley. He's a reporter for PolitiFact.com. That's a fact checking Web site run by the St. Petersburg Times. And he's done a little bit of research on this subject. Welcome to the program.

Mr. ROBERT FARLEY (Reporter, PolitiFact.com): How are you doing?

NORRIS: Mr. Farley, because we're talking about percentages, and in this case, a large percentage, 90 percent, I just want to try to dig into this and try to understand it. We're actually talking about a percentage of a percentage, is that correct?

Mr. FARLEY: That's correct. It's the guns that were submitted by Mexican officials to the ATF to be traced and then again, amongst those, those that could be traced.

NORRIS: Okay, so it wasn't that 90 percent of all the guns, it's just those that were submitted. How many were actually submitted? What kind of percentages are we talking about there?

Mr. FARLEY: About - last year, Mexican officials submitted a little over 12,000 guns to the ATF to be traced, and the year before that, about 6,500. Some statistics suggest that that's about a third of all the guns that have been recovered in Mexico.

NORRIS: So it's only one-third of the guns recovered in Mexico are sent back to the ATF. Now, are they able to actually discern, in looking at those guns, how many were from the U.S.? Are all of them traceable?

Mr. FARLEY: Not all guns are traceable, of course. We don't have exact percentages on how many - what percentage they're able to trace, but certainly not all of them.

NORRIS: Now, this 90 percent number has stirred a very active debate right now, and it stirred a certain amount of criticism. At least one of our listeners pointed us to a story that appeared on the Fox News Web site. And in that story they cite another statistic. They say that only 17 percent of guns seized in Mexico come from the U.S. Is that percentage closer to the truth?

Mr. FARLEY: No, as a matter of fact, it's probably very far from the truth. That number assumes that all the guns that have not been submitted to be traced are not from the United States. And that'd be, certainly, a big leap.

NORRIS: So if the 90 percent statistic is not quite right and the 17 percent number is also incorrect, what is the accurate number? What number should our policymakers be citing?

Mr. FARLEY: Well, we don't know exactly what percentage of all the recovered guns in Mexico, where they're coming from. But, you know, a Mexican official that we spoke with said that the percentage of guns confiscated in Mexico probably is closer to the 90 percent figure than the 17. If not, fully 90 percent, probably close to that. He said that almost all of the handguns that are confiscated in Mexico come from the United States. And that amongst the assault weapons, while a good number of them are coming from the United States, they're also - that's more of a mixed bag. And they're coming, as well, through some of the drug routes in Eastern Europe and Africa.

NORRIS: Well, Robert Farley, thank you very much for clearing this up for us.

Mr. FARLEY: Well, thanks so much for having me.

NORRIS: That's Robert Farley. He works for the Web site PolitiFact.com. He's a reporter there. The Web site is run by the St. Petersburg Times newspaper.

So, not 17 percent, says the NPR expert, but not 90 percent either. This is doubleplus ungood for the administration. The Secretary of State said 90 percent. The President said 90 percent. The Senators said 90 percent. NPR is not FOX. Even their supporters watch NPR, so does most of the media elite and nattering nabobs, as Spiro Agnew once called them. 90 percent has been discredited, at least in part. According to my sources, this did not go over well with Hillary. Not at all.

(At this point, a word is necessary about my sources. Some sources -- and not just the ones for this story -- wish to speak only on background and then not to be quoted in their original voices lest some distinct combination of syntax, grammar or slang point point to their identity. If the narrative below is thus largely devoid of direct quotes, that is the reason.)

According to sources, the NPR debunking of the 90 percent myth did not go over well with Hillary when it was dutifully reported to her by a subordinate. There was some sense, say the sources, that the 90 percent meme should be strengthened by requesting more data on seized weapons from the Mexican government. In other words, the 90 percent meme, previously agreed upon, should be sustained rather than abandoned. There was widespread opinion in the professional ranks at State that the figure was incorrect and that the administration made itself idiotic by clinging to it -- that it was a mistake to insist upon it.

There was also considerable discussion at this time back and forth between State, Justice and the National Security Council of how more firearm restrictions could be had, by administrative rule-making and treaties, without paying a political price.

The Mexicans were demanding a new Assault Weapons Ban with teeth, which coincided neatly with administration wishes, but how to accomplish it without political blowback? There was considerable frustration that no incident of domestic mass shooting had, so far, changed American political opinion in the direction of more gun control. If anything, opinion had shifted the other way.

Proof that the 90 percent meme was undoubtedly bogus came in the form of a State Department cable from Mexico City on 28 October 2009, previously reported on here at Sipsey Street on 31 August 2011:

"Claims by Mexican and U.S. officials that upwards of 90 percent of illegal recovered weapons can be traced back to the U.S. is based on an incomplete survey of confiscated weapons. In point of fact, without wider access to the weapons seized in Mexico, we really have no way of verifying these numbers."

As the realization that the 90 percent myth line's flank had been turned, the meme's supporters withdrew first to the 80 percent ridge, then to the 70 percent ridge beyond that, where it remains today in the minds and mouths of the firearm confiscationists like Senator Feinstein. Witness this from her press release of 13 June 2011:

About 70 percent of the guns seized in Mexico and submitted to a U.S. gun-tracing program came from the United States, according to a report released by three U.S. senators Monday.

My sources say that this battle of the "statistics" was taken very seriously by all players -- the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No.

This statistics mania is similar to the focus on "body counts" in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why?

Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: "ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics."

In "In at the beginning, Part 3," our sources tell us how the demand to "pad statistics" from on high apparently led to the tactic of "letting the guns walk."

10 comments:

It almost seems to me that Mexico was on-board this thing from the beginning. Seems like they KNEW where the guns were coming from, because they were so confident in the numbers.

The 90% figure was being "proven" with F&F - what Holder needed was for Mexico to intercept these guns themselves and turn around and display them as "coming from U.S. gun stores on the border." And to do that, the minions at the bottom could not be told about the "walking guns"...it would be better if it happened naturally.

The more I read about this, the worse it gets. What would Mexico get in return for shutting down gun ownership in the U.S.? Open borders? Free and easy drug trade?

ALL of these things were, I assure you, considered at the very highest levels of government and then the tracks were drug to remove all evidence of passage.

The implications of these policies with respect political blow-back are immense for the democratic party as well as Mr. Obama and company.

What we have here is a very plain and unvarnished example, of willful TREASON.

TREASON against the very principles and documents and people of the country. SUPPORTED by their judges.

And people still think that this is not a plan, that somehow all of this just magically came to be, that it just magically happened without help. I'm more charitable than most and even I no longer believe that.

This is a plan and the planners and implementors are traitors and have committed murder as a part of that plan. Just imagine a future wherein these people rule without any knowledge or consequences on the part of the citzen.

Your life and your children's as a means to their ends...

TREASON and MURDER, among other charges and we are only considering, dismissals? What does this tell us about our government? What does it tell us about their plans for us and our children?

We are getting educated - padding statistics is always a loser. If guns were walked to Mexico under watchful eye of US govt, those responsible are law-breakers. Dennis Burke was a law-breaker who resigned but not charged yet. Lanny Breuer (Nr 3 in DOJ) sent weekly reports on gunflows to Mex from AZ. K OReilly in WH wanted to know about gunflows to Mex from Texas and asked Gunwalker Bill Newell for that chart. AUSA Hurley assured AZ gun dealers not to worry about sales of guns to people lying about personal use of multiple weapons purchased. DOJ allowed felons to buy guns that would go directly to Mexico where the cartels were spending "millions" on guns from US. Benefit? Pad statistics but lots of collateral damage. Now we need to be educated about the civil war between the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartels - if we armed the Sinaloa to kill Zetas, whose brainchild was that felony stupid op? On a side note, is DOJ mouthpiece Tracy Schmaler complicit in these crimes if she knows about them and does nothing but complain about news articles about them? She has to have read every memo - probably read about Brian Terry's death by Gunwalker guns before anyone in DC. Probably knew FBI was hiding a weapon from Terry's crime scene to protect an informant.

I used to help out in a little midwestern gun shop back in the 70s. Every summer the local factories would shut down for two weeks for maintenance and worker vacations. In the months before the shut down we would get many guys of Mexican heritage in shopping for inexpensive used guns, especially handguns. They would drive down for a visit with family and pay for the trip by selling the guns in the home villages to folks who could not legally own them due to Mexico's draconian gun control laws. It's always been my belief that most of the US sourced guns confiscated by the Mexicans are these type weapons, seized from citizens who only wanted to protect themselves, not from drug cartels. But blaming US weapons fits with the current administration's anti gun stance and aids the Mexican government in their role of victimization and blame avoidance.

Of course we know statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. And has there ever in the whole wide world, down through these past 6,000 years ever been a greater accumulation of liars and deceivers assembled in one place than our very own District of Corruption? Saying one thing one place and another thing, just the opposite, another place either makes everyone happy or really mad.

I direct attention to a terrific piece by Scott Stewart at STRATFOR regarding the 90% myth perpetuated by tyrants and anti-American foreign agents institutionalized in DC.Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth. Or, if I messed ^ up, here: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Deceivers and liars are despicable despots and dedicatedly desire to disabuse US our 2nd Amendment or dispatch US should we resist. Better we grab the ballot box and put them back in academia where they can can only harm our children's thought processes and worldview!

"Ruthless people without conscience..." Hillary sure describes herself and bedmates very well. Nice interview from the head drug smuggler herself.Now look at Afghanistan and the Golden Triangle. The .gov has been involved in drug smuggling and gun running for decades, nothing new here. They're finally getting caught and nobody wants to put the puzzle pieces together, it might ruin the image of this great nation. We are the biggest drug cartel in the world.

TPaine raises a great questions: "What would Mexico stand to gain from this?"

The CIA has a history of smuggling drugs and this would be a great way to pay for them, all the while perpetuating the War On Drugs, which has proven to be a boon to the statists who want to control our lives. It is really a war on freedom and the Constitution.

One important number from the chain of statistics cited that has never been revealed (Surprise, surprise! -- G. Pyle USMC) is the number of guns seized in Mexico with a provable origin in the USA that got to Mexico through direct transfer from the US government to agencies of the Mexican government.

By withholding that important fact, both governments, their spokesmen, and the media on both sides of the border are steering people to believe all guns of US origin in Mexico came from American gun shops. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As one example: it is widely reported how one drug cartel, "Los Zetas", were originally Mexican Army special forces operators who decided to moonlight as security to the other cartels then became a cartel in their own right. Are we for one minute to believe the did not take their US supplied, Mexican Army property, weapons with them when they did?

Didn't I read somewhere that they have hired attorneys to sue the American gun manufacturers?

Perhaps this is another Pigford.

Mexico has a class-action lawsuit against America. A Mexican can file a claim because they had a family member that was killed by one of those guns.

In Pigford, all you had to do is fill out a paper stating that you were a black farmer that was discriminated against. (farmer is a loose term, a potted plant sufficed) You were given $50,000 by our government.

Think what $50,000 would mean for a Mexican citizen/the Mexican economy.

There's only one problem. People died as a result. There's no excuse. People need to go to jail for this.

Because it's a verifiable fact – it's hard evidence and not biased perception. The fundamental principle of the scientific method is that all inquiry and decisions “must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.” And the Twentieth Century Progressive Movement, which is still the intellectual foundation of the modern Democratic Party, is based upon the use of scientific principles (and data from social scientists) by centralized experts who will make major societal decision without the corrupting and political influence of elected officials.

This basic premise of Progressivism is implicitly accepted by virtually all government officials of both parties and by the press. Before any public policy issue can be discussed, impartial facts must first be established. These facts are paramount. They are above everything else – existing laws, the Constitution, beliefs, or opinions.

If most of the firearms used by Mexican drug trafficking organizations come from U.S. border state retail dealers (or guns shows), then there is a problem that must be addressed. The actual percentage is also important to specific tactics, but not to the strategy.

The Obama Administration believes that these are the facts. So does the press. Very little objective research has been conducted or publicized to refute these facts. News reports by FOX News (or MSNBC or CBS) are not objective research. And the NPR story that you quoted supports these facts, too, even though it may question whether or not the figure is as high as 90%.

Progressives, Democrats, Academics and the Press argue facts. So do Libertarians. Conservatives argue values and principles. In today's modern world, facts rule. When the facts are on your side, tactics rarely matter. The ends will almost always justify the means.

What Does It Mean To Be A "Three Percenter"?

These four principles -- moral strength, physical readiness, no first use of force and no targeting of innocents -- are the hallmarks of the Three Percent ideal. Anyone who cannot accept them as a self-imposed discipline in the fight to restore the Founders' Republic should find something else to do and cease calling themselves a "Three Percenter."

No, I'm NOT Charlie. I am ARMED.

Edmund Burke reconsidered in the light of 20th Century funeral pyres.

"Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann.

The Nyberg Battle Flag of the Three Percent

This time we are ALL Davidians. This time, we are all Jews, Kulaks, "counter-revolutionists" and "enemies of the state." We are now a despised minority within a country no longer our own.BUT WE WILL NOT BE DESPISED.

My Blog List

Advice on child rearing from my son.

Everyone should grow up with simulated equipment from a heavy weapons platoon. It gives you a more well rounded education and an appreciation for the finer things in life. -- Sergeant Matthew Vanderboegh, United States Army.

"Progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress."

I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air – that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. -- H.L. Mencken

On the efficacy of passive resistance in the face of the collectivist beast. . .

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

In the future . . .

When the histories are written, “National Rifle Association” will be cross-referenced with “Judenrat.” -- Mike Vanderboegh to Sebastian at "Snowflakes in Hell"

"Smash the bloody mirror."

If you find yourself through the looking glass, where the verities of the world you knew and loved no longer apply, there is only one thing to do. Knock the Red Queen on her ass, turn around, and smash the bloody mirror. -- Mike Vanderboegh

From Kurt Hoffman over at Armed and Safe.

"I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable."

From long experience myself, I can only say, "You betcha."

"Only cowards dare cringe."

The fears of man are many. He fears the shadow of death and the closed doors of the future. He is afraid for his friends and for his sons and of the specter of tomorrow. All his life's journey he walks in the lonely corridors of his controlled fears, if he is a man. For only fools will strut, and only cowards dare cringe. -- James Warner Bellah, "Spanish Man's Grave" in Reveille, Curtis Publishing, 1947.

"We fight an enemy that never sleeps."

"As our enemies work bit by bit to deconstruct, we must work bit by bit to REconstruct. Be mindful where we should be. Set goals. We fight an enemy that never sleeps. We must learn to sleep less." -- Mike H. at What McAuliffe Said

"The Fate of Unborn Millions. . ."

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army-Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; that is all we can expect-We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die." -- George Washington to his troops before the Battle of Long Island.

"We will not go gently . . ."

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can't be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won't be done. The Founders' Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, The Lessons of Mumbai:Death Cults, the "Socialism of Imbeciles" and Refusing to Submit, 1 December 2008

"A common language of resistance . . ."

"Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many Americans colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774." -- T.H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.